Talk:Dolores Huerta/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 07:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: EllaMinnowPea371 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Spookyaki, I will be your reviewer for this article! It's embarrassing how little I know about Chicana/o history so I'm excited to dive into this topic. More comments to follow. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Yet another ping @Spookyaki. This article is very well written, and as far as I am concerned, meets all the GA criteria. I have no further issues with the prose and otherwise the article is in tip-top shape, so I'm happy to pass it now if that's alright with you. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Thank you for your hard work on the review. It's been great working with you. Spookyaki (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Initial assessment- see the criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See further comments

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   All information in the lead that is not cited is cited by a reliable source elsewhere in the article. As far as I can tell, there are no uncited statements.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Note: spot check to follow.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig turns back 59.2% similarity, but the identical phrases are mostly things that can't be said in another way. More comments following spot check

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Virtually nothing is left to be desired; and all subtopical information can be found in the links within the article.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Article follows structure of other GA- and FA-class articles.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Article is substantially neutral, presenting multiple different viewpoints equally when there is disagreement in the literature.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images as of this revision are tagged appropriately.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   See further comments

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Further comments and spot check to follow.

The following sections will consist of the spot check and recommendations I have for improving the article or issues I see in it according to the criteria. Please use the  Done template to indicate that an issue has been adequately addressed, or if you disagree with me, tell me why. Recommendations marked with Suggestion: are not strictly required for GA status.

Spot check (criteria 2)

From this revision

[2] Y

[16] Y It might be necessary to state who you are quoting, though, as during my first read-through I thought it was Huerta who said she was "encouraged by her mother to be socially active".

Attributed. Spookyaki (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

[20] Y Suggestion: add archive link for verifiability (this is what I used)

I believe that is the same edition that I used, so will go ahead and add it. Spookyaki (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

[38] Y Easy pass; this is a quote.

[47] Y

[52] Y Suggestion: add Google books link for verifiability (this is what I used)

a. ✓

b. ✓

c. ✓

Actually used the IA version, so will link that instead. Spookyaki (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

[65] Y * Misleading: article says "administration" but Bush did not come into the presidential office until 1989.

• Nitpick: "multiple" is a little misleading also, as source says it was only two, but to be fair I don't know how else to say that without copying the source's wording.

Good catch. Rephrased: In September 1988, she was beaten by a police officer at a protest against George H. W. Bush's candidacy for president at the St. Francis Hotel in Union Square, San Francisco. She suffered two fractured ribs and a ruptured spleen, which doctors had to surgically remove.

[72] Y I worked off of this Dokumen.pub link

[74] (Rose 2008) Y WP:AGF

[86] ? The statement "...Latino organizations threatened to sue the district, claiming the existing boundaries were unfair to Latinos voting in school board elections" is not directly stated in the source. Another citation is needed

Added source. Rephrased as well, to better reflect the sources: Later, in 2018, the DHF presented a map to the KHSD outlining possible school district boundaries. This came after Latino organizations won a lawsuit against the district in which they argued that the original boundaries disenfranchised Latino voters in school board elections. Spookyaki (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

[109] Y

[129] Y

Prose (criterion 1a)

Early life

• "...as a canner and as a waitress at a local restaurant, where she made $5 a week" Where did she make $5 a week? Across the two jobs, or at just one of them?
  • Across both jobs. Rephrased: Her mother supported the family by working two jobs: as a canner and as a waitress at a local restaurant, earning a total income of $5 weekly from both jobs combined.
• In that same paragraph, it might be necessary to mention Alicia Chávez by name as currently, it only addresses her using pronouns.
  • I can't really think of a great way to do this. There are multiple people with the surname Chávez in the article (including a different person also named Alicia Chávez), so I think distinguishing her by her relation to Dolores is actually more clear. I could say Her mother, Alicia, supported the family..., but her name is already mentioned just a paragraph up. Do you have any suggestions? Spookyaki (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Alright. I think I just needed to read the paragraph a couple of times— it's fairly clear already that her mother is the subject of the paragraph. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• "Many of her students struggled with hunger and did not have sufficient clothing" I would suggest tacking on ", saying" to the end of that sentence to clarify that those are Huerta's own words.
  • Done (though went with "stating"). Spookyaki (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Later union activity

• (Nitpick) "Many criticized their cohabitation as "unorthodox"" First off, was Huerta still living with Cesar and his family at this time? If she was, then were they criticizing her cohabitation with Cesar or with Richard?
  • Referring to Richard. I don't think any of the sources mention her moving out specifically (though it's been a while since I've read them), but it seems unlikely to me that they were living together. Rephrased as Many criticized Dolores and Richard's cohabitation as "unorthodox"... For some reason calling her "Dolores" feels right here since Richard's given name is used so close to it, though I think it's technically not what you're supposed to do per MOS:SURNAME. Feel free to change it if you think the surname should be used instead. Spookyaki (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is fine. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• (Nitpick) "...she was inspired by the women's liberation movement to proceed with it anyway." What is "it"? Her cohabitation with Richard (?) or her romantic relationship with him?
  • Rephrased as ...she was inspired by the women's liberation movement to proceed with the arrangement anyway. I could also just use "the cohabitation" twice in the same sentence, but seems awkward (and why I used the "it" pronoun in the first place). Spookyaki (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• "It was ultimately defeated by a significant margin." Again, what is "it"? I assume it's the proposition, not the boycott, in which case you should specify.
  • Yes, rephrased: The amendment was ultimately defeated by a significant margin...

Images (criteria 6)

• Suggestion: add date in the caption for Image #6
  • Done. Spookyaki (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.